No, Joe! U.S Catholic Bishops Say Biden Spoke Falsely

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Pork_Roll said:
Maybe, or he could be talking about other things like gay marriage and adoptive services. IMO, I don’t think the HHS mandate is limiting our religious freedom inasmuch as it is an attempt to give individual rights over and above those given to communities.
Click to expand...
I disagree. The HHS mandate limits the definition of religion to actual churches and the clergy for the purpose of exempting them from the mandate. Catholic charities, universities and hospitals are de facto religious institutions, yet hey are being asked to fund immoral practices that go to the heart of Catholic dogma. Catholic churches aid non-Catholics no less than Catholic hospitals. Members of religious orders staff Catholic churches. So too, they often staff Catholic charitable organizations, or serve on their boards. Above all, I see the HHS mandate as a violation of the First Amendment on constitutional principles. Obama, a secular humanist IMO, has no love for the Catholic Church.
 
Pork_Roll said:
Actually, I’m getting this from the Fr. Paul Sweeney, President of the Dominican School of Philosophy and Theology (DSPT) at the Graduate Theological Union in Berkeley. He spoke at our church about this exact topic of how best deal with this attack on the church. He thought it best to use a pluralistic approach whereby we argue against this HHS mandate by saying we are a society of communities that exist prior to and apart from the state. We are suffering because our rights are taken down to the individual level opposing the rights at the level of communities, i.e. family, church… etc. It shouldn’t be one or the other, but “both and” I suppose.

Basically, we don’t want a panel of Judges to tell us what marriage is or how the church should operate. This sets a dangerous precedent. The constitution is only acknowledging what is true when speaking of a freedom of religion. Our freedom to practice our Catholic faith is in reality based on the natural law and not the constitution.
Click to expand...
Pork Roll your post is confusing to me. It sounds as if you (following Fr Sweeney) do not believe such assaults as the HHS Mandate, the shutting down of Catholic Charities because of their refusal to adopt out to gays or to refer to abortion clinics, are a big deal. Is that what you mean? What do you mean about the problem of taking the rights down to the individual level. Do you mean that by focusing on individual rights we ignore “community” rights? Maybe I should just read the link?

Lisa
 
The US Bishops, among others, catch Joe Biden lying. In the 1980’s Biden was caught plagiarizing a campaign speech, word for word, from a British politician (Biden was running for president).
The same charge of plagiarism against him in law school in the 1960’s. He pleaded for mercy and the school let him stay.
 
Scalia said:
Wow…Biden’s statements were brazen lies. I can’t remember the last time the USCCB had to call someone out like this. Shame on Biden. What shocks me is that I know some people will still believe Biden, over the Bishops because they simply want the lies to be true.
Click to expand...
Hmmm…

Well, it sure is another excuse to vote D for those checks in the mail!
 
Pork Roll your post is confusing to me. It sounds as if you (following Fr Sweeney) do not believe such assaults as the HHS Mandate, the shutting down of Catholic Charities because of their refusal to adopt out to gays or to refer to abortion clinics, are a big deal. Is that what you mean?
Click to expand...
No, I think Fr. Sweeney was trying to explain why the Obama administration and other worldly powers (mostly in the west) are forcing the church to act contrary to its deeply held beliefs. It’s because the rights of the individual are being held over the rights of communities like the family and church.

He thought trying to fight this as a religious freedom violation is a bad idea and that we should re-frame the argument along the lines of what should happen in a pluralistic society. I do agree with him that the HHS mandate is not much of a religious freedom issue or at least it will not be seen as such.
 
MJE said:
The US Bishops, among others, catch Joe Biden lying. In the 1980’s Biden was caught plagiarizing a campaign speech, word for word, from a British politician (Biden was running for president).
The same charge of plagiarism against him in law school in the 1960’s. He pleaded for mercy and the school let him stay.
Click to expand...
Yes, he blatantly lifted lines from a speech by the British labor politician Neil Kinnoch. I think it spelled the end to Biden’s 1988 run for the Democrat presidential nomination. Truth is, Biden was Biden from the beginning. I am amazed that he became our vice president. And people complained in 2008 about the prospect of Palin being vice president. What a joke.

Ishii
 
ishii said:
Yes, he blatantly lifted lines from a speech by the British labor politician Neil Kinnoch. I think it spelled the end to Biden’s 1988 run for the Democrat presidential nomination. Truth is, Biden was Biden from the beginning. I am amazed that he became our vice president. And people complained in 2008 about the prospect of Palin being vice president. What a joke.

Ishii
Click to expand...
You know I always wondered why Sarah Palin was treated like a moron, simply because she didn’t have an Ivy League education, was staunchly pro-life, attractive, had it “all” as feminists would want you to believe is their objective (home, family, career, public service) and didn’t project the image a female or should I say She-Male politician was supposed to project.

OTOH we have Joe Biden with his law degree (however he received it and sometimes I wonder) and a long but totally undistinguished career in the Senate representing a TINY and nationally insignificant state (unless you think being a headquarters for corporations is important), who was treated as some sort of elder statesman and foreign policy wonk when all the evidence was to the contrary. I always thought he was just an old time pol who existed on the tired tradition of favor trading, political pandering and quite honestly lying with amazing ease. The multiple falsehoods from the debate were simply “Joe being Joe” as the Dems claimed on the Sunday shows.

All of the interruptions and filibustering reminded me of the quote “Better to be silent and be thought a fool, than open your mouth and remove all doubt.” (Plato I think)

This man is a heartbeat away from the Presidency :eek:
Lisa
 
Pork_Roll said:
This is all great stuff but I think the Holy Father is addressing religious freedom issues in the Middle East where many Christians do not have religious freedom.
Click to expand...
Pope Sees Religious Freedom Eroding in US
The Pope said that he was dismayed by reports from the American bishops about* new threats** to religious freedom. He mentioned especially the initiatives that would “deny the right of conscientious objection” to people who are morally opposed to** “cooperation in intrinsically evil practices.” Here the Pontiff was obviously referring to policies that would require health-care personnel to cooperate in abortions, or force both public officials and private individuals to participate** in the celebration of** same-sex marriages** or refer children for adoption by gay couples. The US bishops have sharply criticized the Obama administration for its unwillingness to** afford** “conscience clause” protections to** religious believers.***
http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=13035
.
 
Pork_Roll said:
Maybe, or he could be talking about other things like gay marriage and adoptive services. IMO, I don’t think the HHS mandate is limiting our religious freedom inasmuch as it is an attempt to give individual rights over and above those given to communities.
Click to expand...
In his Address to Bishops of the United States, the Pope reaffirms the right of the Church to intervene publicly

Convincing Witness in the Face of Radical Secularism
***Many of you have pointed out that concerted efforts have been made to deny the right of conscientious objection on the part of Catholic individuals and institutions with regard to cooperation in intrinsically evil practices. Others have spoken to me of a worrying tendency *to reduce religious freedom to mere freedom of worship without guarantees of respect for freedom of conscience
http://www.osservatoreromano.va/portal/dt?JSPTabContainer.setSelected=JSPTabCon tainer%2FDetail&last=false=&path=/news/vaticano/2012/016q12-Il-Papa-ai-vescovi-degli-Stati-Uniti–Testi.html&title=Convincing%20witness%20 in%20the%20face%20of%20radical%20secular ism&locale=en
 
Pork_Roll said:
No, I think Fr. Sweeney was trying to explain why the Obama administration and other worldly powers (mostly in the west) are forcing the church to act contrary to its deeply held beliefs. It’s because the rights of the individual are being held over the rights of communities like the family and church.

He thought trying to fight this as a religious freedom violation is a bad idea and that we should re-frame the argument along the lines of what should happen in a pluralistic society. I do agree with him that the HHS mandate is not much of a religious freedom issue or at least it will not be seen as such.
Click to expand...
He is in the minority. I would rather follow our constitution (and our Bishops) on this and
fight to remove the HHS mandate. Our religious liberties are God-given and no earthly
authority should take them away or “grant” them.
Our paying for “rights” of women to have contraceptives, abortion-inducing drugs and
sterilizations is because of individual “rights”?? Where does this “right” come from?
 
Pork_Roll said:
Maybe, or he could be talking about other things like gay marriage and adoptive services. IMO, I don’t think the HHS mandate is limiting our religious freedom inasmuch as it is an attempt to give individual rights over and above those given to communities.
Click to expand...
But it is protection of individual rights that is in our founding documents and these rights come from God. I just don’t see the same rights being applied to groups or communities ahead of protecting the individual. The “community rights” approach sounds a bit like mob rule or a more Leftist approach.

Based on Cardinal Dolan’s comments, the Holy Father clearly referred to religious liberty being compromised by the HHS Mandate, requiring Catholic Charities to act against our Church’s teaching with respect to adoptions to same sex couples or homosexuals, referring victims of sexual slavery to abortion providers, etc. The Obama Administration has clearly declared war on religious liberty…Hosanna Tabor anyone? Their agenda is clear and we should not allow ourselves to accept the boiled frog treatment.

Lisa
 
LisaA said:
You know I always wondered why Sarah Palin was treated like a moron, simply because she didn’t have an Ivy League education, was staunchly pro-life, attractive, had it “all” as feminists would want you to believe is their objective (home, family, career, public service) and didn’t project the image a female or should I say She-Male politician was supposed to project.

OTOH we have Joe Biden with his law degree (however he received it and sometimes I wonder) and a long but totally undistinguished career in the Senate representing a TINY and nationally insignificant state (unless you think being a headquarters for corporations is important), who was treated as some sort of elder statesman and foreign policy wonk when all the evidence was to the contrary. I always thought he was just an old time pol who existed on the tired tradition of favor trading, political pandering and quite honestly lying with amazing ease. The multiple falsehoods from the debate were simply “Joe being Joe” as the Dems claimed on the Sunday shows.

All of the interruptions and filibustering reminded me of the quote “Better to be silent and be thought a fool, than open your mouth and remove all doubt.” (Plato I think)

This man is a heartbeat away from the Presidency :eek:
Lisa
Click to expand...
All true. All sad.
 
LisaA said:
Laughable premise but hey it’s a free country and you can choose to live in an alternative universe where up is down and where Obama’s support of infanticide is equivalent to Father Pavone’s support of unborn babies. I allow that you’re free to do so:shrug:

It’s always laughable that people think we’re all so stupid to believe there is some sort of moral equivalence between supporting life at all stages and supporting the use of OPM for various programs. Or that there is some kind of equivalence between supporting abortion at all stages for any reason, supporting infanticide and being willing to support a law that would allow abortion for the most uncommon and obscure of situations.

People are always bringing up the rape and incest factor. Given that PP alone provides 300000+ surgical abortions per year, how many were the result of rape or the LIFE of the mother (which incidentally virtually is NON EXISTENT)?

Balance the scales…300000 or a handful? Do the math.

Lisa
Click to expand...
Not sure what point you were trying to make, mine is simply about the credibility of one candidate versus the other.

Of course, if you are one of those who don’t need to scrutinize the personal tax returns to judge sense of fiscal/civic responsibility, hear the named exemptions that will be eliminated to prevent tax cuts from raising the deficit, or see the mathematical calculations to prove that voucherizing Medicare will not short change seniors, then you might not require Romney to show that a practical way exists in the modern medical environment to limit abortions to rape/incest.

I happen to believe that no such practical way exists that would not require the voluntary cooperation of people who actually attended medical school…so unless Romney has some pixie dust to sprinkle on medical practitioners, he needs to prove that his rape/incest exceptions have some practical utility in the REAL world where up is up and down is down.
 
seekerz said:
Not sure what point you were trying to make, mine is simply about the credibility of one candidate versus the other.

Of course, if you are one of those who don’t need to scrutinize the personal tax returns to judge sense of fiscal/civic responsibility, hear the named exemptions that will be eliminated to prevent tax cuts from raising the deficit, or see the mathematical calculations to prove that voucherizing Medicare will not short change seniors, then you might not require Romney to show that a practical way exists in the modern medical environment to limit abortions to rape/incest.

I happen to believe that no such practical way exists that would not require the voluntary cooperation of people who actually attended medical school…so unless Romney has some pixie dust to sprinkle on medical practitioners, he needs to prove that his rape/incest exceptions have some practical utility in the REAL world where up is up and down is down.
Click to expand...
My point was that it would be far better to have an abortion policy restricted to the minute few that result from rape and life of the mother, than the current free for all, with the added bonus of the Democrats proposal of government funding of abortion that was tested out at the Democrat Convention.

I find those who claim to be purists and will settle only for the most restrictive of policies are simply trying to create a moral equivalence between several hundred thousand abortions and perhaps several thousand. As you said do the math.

As a CPA and as an observer of human nature, I don’t have to look at someone’s returns to determine their sense of civic responsibility. You of course have conveniently forgotten Romney’s acceptance of the Olympic turnaround and governorship at ZERO salary. That speaks volumes to me I understand that you like me have a candidate you support. I can’t imagine anything that could be said that would change my mind and I suspect the same is true of you.

However don’t forget, perfection is the enemy of the good. I would rather have Romney/Ryan’s policies even if not perfect than abortion at any time for no reason at all and preferably paid by the taxpayers approach of Obama/Biden. If you prefer the opposite then that’s your choice but I don’t find your reasoning very compelling.

Lisa
 
LisaA said:
My point was that it would be far better to have an abortion policy restricted to the minute few that result from rape and life of the mother, than the current free for all, with the added bonus of the Democrats proposal of government funding of abortion that was tested out at the Democrat Convention.

I find those who claim to be purists and will settle only for the most restrictive of policies are simply trying to create a moral equivalence between several hundred thousand abortions and perhaps several thousand. As you said do the math.

As a CPA and as an observer of human nature, I don’t have to look at someone’s returns to determine their sense of civic responsibility. You of course have conveniently forgotten Romney’s acceptance of the Olympic turnaround and governorship at ZERO salary. That speaks volumes to me I understand that you like me have a candidate you support. I can’t imagine anything that could be said that would change my mind and I suspect the same is true of you.

However don’t forget, perfection is the enemy of the good. I would rather have Romney/Ryan’s policies even if not perfect than abortion at any time for no reason at all and preferably paid by the taxpayers approach of Obama/Biden. If you prefer the opposite then that’s your choice but I don’t find your reasoning very compelling.

Lisa
Click to expand...
No, I don’t expect you to find my reasoning compelling. Romney saved the Olympics and worked for no salary so he should be able to invent a way to compel doctors to not ‘believe’ women who walk in to their offices reporting to have been raped. Makes perfect sense.
 
seekerz said:
Of course, if you are one of those who don’t need to scrutinize the personal tax returns to judge sense of fiscal/civic responsibility, hear the named exemptions that will be eliminated to prevent tax cuts from raising the deficit, or see the mathematical calculations to prove that voucherizing Medicare will not short change seniors, then you might not require Romney to show that a practical way exists in the modern medical environment to limit abortions to rape/incest.
Click to expand...
Any candidate that gives you specifics will certainly be made a liar. Those decisions are up to Congress, who will dictate the specifics. The President can try and shape how the legislation comes out, but he certainly cannot determine the specifics.
 
seekerz said:
No, I don’t expect you to find my reasoning compelling. Romney saved the Olympics and worked for no salary so he should be able to invent a way to compel doctors to not ‘believe’ women who walk in to their offices reporting to have been raped. Makes perfect sense.
Click to expand...
Your post makes no sense.

Lisa
 
Dawnia said:
Any candidate that gives you specifics will certainly be made a liar. Those decisions are up to Congress, who will dictate the specifics. The President can try and shape how the legislation comes out, but he certainly cannot determine the specifics.
Click to expand...
👍👍

This is how Reagan took the Carter debacle and turned around our economy. He took overall concepts, set a goal and worked with Congress to implement it. As you said, specifics will only create a point for future attack…you know like Obama’s promise to cut the deficit in half.

This is the same way that Bain sucessfully turned around companies. They couldn’t buy a troubled company with the premise we are going to cut X% of this or that cost or improve our market by Y% or bring on three new products in 24 months. If a plan wasn’t working or an objective not being achieved they focused on the PROBLEM not the blame.

All battle plans fall at first contact with the enemy. Romney has not only achieved the goals he set, it was noted when he was Mass Governor he had a list of his campaign objectives and met weekly with his staff to see how they were being implemented.

Unlike Obama who phones it in, it will be nice to have a President who wants to be engaged in the process.

Lisa
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top